Bible vs. Science: Both Sides Are Wrong

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by NYCmitch25, Feb 20, 2013.

  1. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's irrelevant to compare the two, even to do it in a casual way is giving not only religion a unrealistic standard to hold but also giving Science an unrealistic standard to prove or disprove religion. I'm sticking to creation myths, here btw but certainly Christianity has some serious cracks aside from this point of defense.
     
  2. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's irrelevant to compare the two, even to do it in a casual way is giving not only religion a unrealistic standard to hold but also giving Science an unrealistic standard to prove or disprove religion. I'm sticking to creation myths, here btw but certainly Christianity has some serious cracks aside from this point of defense.
     
  3. cupid dave

    cupid dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    17,005
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    When I close my eyes I see that I exist inside some kind of an entity which is external to my inner thoughts. (See Rene Descartes, "I think, therefore I am certain I exist.")

    But this other "thingee" is essential to my survival, this thingee that is "out there" and full of what I have come to understand is other people similar to myself.
    At first, the whole life experience from birth is threatening, because this thing I call "reality" is almighty.
    It both nurtures me and threatens me with pain, deprivations, and harm unto death.
    I think I must get along with this thingee.

    But what I have come to understand is the grace if this thing is that there is Truth, a way to know, understand, and make practical good use of the thing.
    Truth is the son of this Reality, and my savior.
     
  4. Wizard From Oz

    Wizard From Oz Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,676
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have often wondered why some see Faith vs Science as some sort of competition. Both move in very different ways. Faith and religion is about our internal perceptions and understandings of the human condition. Science is about our external perceptions of a physical universe. Faith can not disprove the physical, science can't disprove internalization.
     
  5. sjp

    sjp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2013
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I get it. You're interpreting "the word" so it fits into modern society. It's like creating another denomination. Nothing more then religious evolution. Get in line, there are thousands waiting approval.

    Validation has to be done at the first presumption, not # 10.

    Is it believe first then rationalize, or the other way?
     
  6. cupid dave

    cupid dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    17,005
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48


    Of course you will stick to you ridicule and disparagement of both the Bible and religion.
    That is the nature iof the beast, and the way of debates.

    You have your ego tied up in this because you are saying you are right.

    You do nit care abou truth, here.
    Your interest, as with all people, is to maintain your position.

    That is the essence of "The Emperor has no Clothes on."
    This is why a little child willlead you and the world when he cries out, "these people are blind, because that man is naked."
    That is why we say the Naked Truth.

    That is why the bible was written.
    The idea was to get world wide attention, make it a religious issue.
    Have you atheists on ine side and the church peiple on the other.

    Then show the Truth can explain to you both what the Bible is really saying, but only when Modern Science establishs Facts neither side can deny.

    You are one of the fools on that side, while the church people are the fools on the other side.

    The social dialectic is about to explode into a synthesis of Theistic Evolution, compromising you both.



    There WAS one ocean, once, where all the waters had been collected together around Pangaea.


    Gen. 1:9 And (Father Nature, the first cause), God, said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, (Panthalassa), and let (Pangea/Rodinia), the dry land appear: (composed of the Seven Large Tectonic Plates):


    [​IMG]


    1. North American Plate,
    2. Pacific Plate,
    3. South American Plate,
    4. African Plate,
    5. Eurasian Plate,
    6. Anartic Plate,
    7. Australian Plate),...

    ...and it was so.

    - - - Updated - - -

    No they don't...
    Both INSIST they have been stating the Truth.
     
  7. cupid dave

    cupid dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    17,005
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    48
    LOL

    You do NOT get "it."

    I am stating things that correspond to one another both in Science and Genesis.

    For instance, the 22 names in the genealogy correspond NUMERICALLY to what what just published most recently by Science people:

    [​IMG]

    Book:
    [​IMG]

    The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans
    by G.J.Sawyer, (Author)

    [​IMG]




    YOU ARE SAYING YOU WILL REFUSE TO SEE THIESE CORRESPONDENCES AND ATTACK ME AND THE CORRESPONDENCES THEMSELVES.
     
  8. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,518
    Likes Received:
    27,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Dave, the bible is a flat earth book. The authors had no clue about the shape or nature of the earth, nor knew what the stars and planets actually were.

    This modern interpretation of various biblical passages works at first glance and on out-of-context verses, but it doesn't stand up to any real scrutiny. Especially where your 22 tribes or whatever are concerned :lol:
     
  9. sjp

    sjp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2013
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I wasn't responding to you. I quoted NYCmitch25.
     
  10. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The true meaning according to whom?
    Since God is invisible, everyone has somewhat their own facimile of what he/she/it/they is.
    I can't define it for you, only you can. Or a religious group.
     
  11. Archie Goodwin

    Archie Goodwin New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,826
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Heck; I don't know. Maybe background radiation which the BB theory predicted, actually being there and measurable? Whadaya think?

    Meanwhile, anything solid in support of Genisisian theory?
     
  12. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am actually only interested in the truth, that is where you and I differ. It's is strange for you to argue that I am only interested in my own views while only being interested in your own narrow interpritation on the subject. Perhaps, if you paid attention, and not be so immediately dismissive of other peoples ideas, you may learn something.

    I'm actually warning you, that taking a literal interpriation of the creation myths are doing your faith a disservice. If this works for you, I suggest that you keep it to yourself.
     
  13. GraspingforPeace

    GraspingforPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    14,162
    Likes Received:
    1,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First off, your picture shows 12 different classifications, not 22. You're off by 10. Secondly, Cro-Magnon man, Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloids are not different species of humans. They are ONE species with different characteristics.
     
  14. Archie Goodwin

    Archie Goodwin New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,826
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes; but if and only if they're politically progressive, since it's a fact that Conservatives are Satan's spawn and only take human form in an attempt to deceive.
     
  15. John.

    John. New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    626
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0

    That's a picture he photoshopped. It aint in the book he cited so he is knowingly misrepresenting the book to give authority to ideas that are crap.
     
  16. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I Highly recommend This: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1751746


    PS> How can you eat Vegimite, man, I tried it when I was in Cairns last summer.. YUCK! lol
     
  17. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You have a very narrow view and it's quite ironic considering that the religious right are usually more likely to be more in that camp.

    Or are they? They have their views, and you have yours, right? I bet you have fought it out with a pile of people on here who keep trying to substantiate the Bible with Science; it's an easy argument on your part. Is the earth 6000 years old, of course not. Was Adam a white guy tempted by a snake? no.

    Fundamentally you are wrong in asserting I am altering religion because I am merely pointing out how religions have moved away from their original intentions, largely thanks to human foray into fancy scienfic concepts, concepts I fully embrace btw. The point is that religous ignorance on both sides is driving a wasteful debate. I'm merely taking clues from regligous scholars and bringing it to the table here for you to digest. Posting pictures of the Big Bang as a response from people is kind of funny to me. Since I'm sitting there and honestly thinking, "I know more about both of these subjects" ... Call me arrogant but I'm not wrong ... ;-)

    PS> I am very scientific minded btw, I probably know more about a lot of subjects than most people. I'm only pointing this out so you know that I am not coming from a specific angle. I'm actually trying to spare the need to have this debate, I greatly underestimated the false assuptions people are so willing to cling on to here. More likely I should say established views.
     
  18. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sir, I think being in a debate forum is not for you.
     
  19. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is awful.... I've been rather casual in my responses, and I don't fully take you seriously to be honest. This post to me just illustrates that you lack knowledge in multiple subjects.

    To act as if the random changes in hominin evolution (notice that I correctly said hominin), a random sequence of trial and error, with only partial connections fully understood at this point in time, should be appropriately applied in your eyes to some religous context is laughable. Lets see for one, evolution isn't in a direct sequence, the lineage is not so straight forward, for example you are missing A.Sediba, and also assuming that these are hard and direct lines of evolution. So which ones are in the Bible? What if they found 40 more? Would you adjust the names to match that? Get it? At some point your relgious Intelligent Design POV is just redunant. Moreover, you are giving others, even those in this forum plenty of room to attack.
     
  20. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is a commonality between all of the major theist and non-theist relgious doctrines which I am eluding to. I wanted to see if you could just discern SOME deeper thought about religion or if you have dismissed it or dimished it to something small. I would assume that you have. Understandable, I am not an advocate for it either. I was trying to elude to the fact that the God understanding is beyond what words and logical understanding can bring. This thinking is a more truer understanding of the God figure be it Islam, Christainity, Hindu'ism etc. Religion is more about the unknown out there. Wether or not you believe in it or not.

    - - - Updated - - -

    What's with the pointless responses ?
     
  21. NYCmitch25

    NYCmitch25 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maybe I'm not clear enough, or people are set in their ways, but this is becoming ridiculous ...
     
  22. sjp

    sjp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2013
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Being skeptical and asking for clarification isn't narrow minded.

    You said it, not me. Look...

    If you aren't changing their meaning or interpreting them a different way, then what are you doing? You haven't really made a point with the posts. What are you getting at? Where are you getting your information on the topic and what is your conclusion?

    Before the 16th century astronomers had to create complex systems (Ptolemaic system) to explain the movement of celestial bodies to conform to their view of a geocentric model that is proclaimed in scripture. Copernicus came along and threw out that model and started from scratch. He placed the sun in the middle on the solar system and by doing so removed the need for epicycles and created the current model.

    Now, what are you doing? Are you holding on to the creation myth and trying to bend and force science around it? Why not throw out that dated model and start with something new. Otherwise you will end up like the ancient astronomers rationalizing so the myths continue.
     
  23. Stagnant

    Stagnant Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Before I begin, NYC, I thought I should clarify something. I disagree with you, and find your position lacking in a number of regards. Cupid dave, on the other hand, I don't just disagree with - rather, I think he's in the same basic category as people who believe that Obama is the antichrist and 9/11 was actually caused by Illuminati wizards. Those guys. He's really not worth debating with, and I would be much appreciative if he stopped trying to peddle the same stupid bull(*)(*)(*)(*) in every thread, but hey, that's life.

    In Christian theology, the Christian God is defined as an all-powerful, all-knowing, omnibenevolent creator of the universe, who interacts with the universe with literally limitless power, gets to define what good is or is the definition of good, and is in possession of numerous other (often contradictory or even self-contradictory) traits.

    Not quite, but what I'm describing is, more than anything else, the god of the bible. The god which one much profess belief in to be classified as a Christian in the first place.

    And here, you've totally lost me - a combination of the grammar, your argument becoming incoherent, and it being 5:00 AM. What I do gather is that you seem to be talking about some hypothetical religion which is not even slightly reliant upon the bible. Which, while nice, is not Christianity.

    Well no (*)(*)(*)(*), Sherlock, "describe God" has been one of the major philosophical questions of the last 5000 years! Divining god's nature is the whole point of bible study. What's more, you're asking us to describe a being that is by definition beyond any means we have to test him/her with, that nobody can convincingly demonstrate to have seen, and whose qualities are very often considered so far beyond our understanding that the very idea of trying to pin down the nature of god is inherently pointless. Got any other good ones, like "Care to describe human nature"? :roll:

    And yet, many people take literal truth from scripture every day. Just because you don't doesn't mean others don't, and when you consider the bible and Christianity as a whole, their Christianity is actually more coherent and cohesive - it doesn't contradict itself quite as hard.
     
  24. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I disagree.

    Science changes because it has evidence.

    Interpretations of the Bible change because science has evidence, or it doesn't because die hard theists refuse to accept the evidence.

    Science just wins.
     
  25. TBryant

    TBryant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2011
    Messages:
    4,146
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I think you are speaking to deaf ears here. I personally find the christian faith beautiful and poetic and see so many spiritual truths in it that I am often moved towards belief. But the staunch and rigorous defenders of traditional faith convince me ultimately to turn away. They will turn the teachings of Christ into an anecdote eventually, and maybe that is for the better.

    It is dangerous today to hold some truths to be so important that the reality of things pales to compare. We will all pay the price, and I do not blame God or Jesus, I blame the vanity of man which holds on to personal faith at the expense of reason.

    The failure of current christian theologist could certainly destroy the future. By digging their heads so far into the sand that any new scientific truth becomes their enemy they continually separate themselves from the movement of society. And so God moves farther and farther from our lives.

    The sad thing is that they are so convinced that they are right that they cannot see how the movement of time is making them irrelevant.

    The future without God may not bring on armageddon, but it will certainly make our existence less meaningful.
     

Share This Page